There was a time, and not long ago, when murderers could get a volume discount for their crimes.

One first-degree murder conviction would net a life term with no parole for 25 years. Kill two or three or four and the penalty was the same. For a young multiple killer, possible freedom was only a quarter century away — no matter how many victims he’d amassed.

Thankfully, not anymore.

When double thrill killers Dellen Millard and Mark Smich appear Monday for a sentencing hearing for their murder of Laura Babcock — it would have been her 29th birthday that day — Crown attorney Jill Cameron will ask Justice Michael Code to impose a consecutive life term to the one the pair is already serving for the slaying of Tim Bosma.

If the judge agrees, as he should, Millard and Smich won’t be allowed to apply for parole for 50 years, instead of 25.

Their lawyers are expected to launch a constitutional challenge, arguing that having to serve back-on-back terms is “cruel and unusual punishment.” But that’s nothing compared to what these killers have done to the Bosma and Babcock families.

In 2011, the Harper government passed the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. It’s not exactly a catchy title, but it promised no more free rides for murderers who went on a killing spree. The Criminal Code amendment allows judges the discretion to impose separate, 25-year periods of parole ineligibility for each additional victim — to be served consecutively and not simultaneously with the first — if justified by the “character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission.”

Killers could no longer add to their tally for free; additional victims were no longer to be devalued and lumped in. We would hopefully see no more Clifford Olsons: the late serial killer murdered 11, yet served 11 simultaneous life sentences. It’s not that there was ever a chance that he would really be released after 25 years but the families of his victims still had to endure Olson’s bids for parole.

Justin Bourque was one of the first multiple killers to be sentenced under the new law. In 2014, a New Brunswick judge gave the 24-year-old life in prison with no chance of parole for 75 years for killing three RCMP officers — the longest sentence in Canadian history and the harshest since the death penalty was abolished.

Two Alberta judges followed suit last year: Triple murderer Douglas Garland was sentenced to life without parole for 75 years for the deaths of a Calgary couple and their five-year-old grandson last February and in August, Derek Saretzky was given the same sentence for killing a toddler, her father and a senior.

In Ontario, the first sentencing under the new law came in 2015, when Eaton Centre shooter Christopher Husbands was handed two consecutive life terms for second-degree murder, with no parole for 15 years on each. Husbands’ lawyer argued the new consecutive sentence provision was unconstitutional because it creates a “degrading loss of hope of release which is both cruel and unusual” and is an “affront to human dignity.”

Supplied court exhibit image of Mark SmichHandout/Court exhibit

It’s the same argument that could be used in the Millard and Smich hearing.

In the Husbands’ case, now-retired Superior Court Justice Eugene Ewaschuk dismissed his Charter application, ruling judges still have the discretion to craft fair sentences under the law. Hopefully, Code will find the same.

Any precedent set by Husbands’ 30-year parole ineligibility, the longest in Ontario history, was undone last summer when the appeal court ordered a new trial due to the judge’s error during jury selection.

Dellen MillardFacebook

For Millard and Smich, consecutive terms is the only just sentence for their cold-blooded murder and incineration of two innocent people — one a young father, the other a former friend. Why should they get a free pass for killing Babcock because they are already serving a life term for Bosma? How can her life be worth nothing in this horrific equation?

The evil duo should have to spend five decades behind bars before they even think about requesting release. Let them be old men in their 80s with their lives firmly behind them.

And if Millard is convicted of a third first-degree murder — he goes on trial in April on charges he killed his father — prison will be where he lives. And where he dies.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.